Legal Opinion
Maes v. Charter Commc'n
District Court, W.D. Wisconsin
Decided October 30, 2018No. 18-cv-124-jdpPublishedCited by 10 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtJames D. Peterson, District Judge
Plaintiff Mitchell Maes alleges that defendant Charter Communication repeatedly called him using an autodialer in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA). Dkt. 1. Defendants move to dismiss Maes's claim under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), contending that Maes has not alleged facts sufficient to show that Charter used an autodialer. Dkt. 9.
This case raises an interesting question regarding which definition of autodialer the court should apply. The term autodialer is defined in both the TCPA itself and through rules promulgated by the Federal Communications…
2Cases cited14 opinions
- Reynolds v. CB Sports Bar, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 2010
- Nicole Blow v. Bijora, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 2017
- Peggy Zahn v. North American Power & Gas, LLCourt of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 2016
- ACA Int'l v. Fed. Commc'ns Comm'nCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · 2018
- Sandusky Wellness Center, LLC v. ASD Specialty Healthcare, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 2017
9 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by10 opinions
- Breda v. Cellco PartnershipCourt of Appeals for the First Circuit · 2019
- Duran v. La Boom Disco, Inc.District Court, E.D. New York · 2019
- Hudson v. Ralph Lauren Corp.District Court, E.D. Illinois · 2019
- Jiminez v. Credit One Bank, N.A.District Court, S.D. Illinois · 2019
- Boger v. Citrix Systems, Inc.District Court, D. Maryland · 2020
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.